APPLICANT SHOULD PRODUCE THE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED DURING 2001 TO TRACE OUT THE DISPOSAL

The Applicant Mr. C.M. Parashar,S/o Late Shri Ramjilal Parashar, R/o Plot No.2 cha, 10, Aravali Vihar, Alwar-301002filed his RTI application dated 08.10.07 with the CPIO Department of Posts, New Delhi requesting for information about the disposal of his mercy petition of 2001 to the President of India The CPIO replied on 02.11.07 stating that “the petitioner’s right extends only to seeking information as defined in Section 2(f) either by pinpointing the file, documents, paper or record, etc., or by mentioning the type of information as may be available with the specified Public Authority”. The CPIO requested the Applicant to specify the file /document/record so that information may be provided. Aggrieved with this reply, the Applicant filed his Complaint before the CIC at the delay in furnishing the information on 03.07.09 and reiterating his request for it.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for 24 September, 2009. Mr. A Ko Ghosh, CPIO and Mr. S.K. Behera, Appellate Authority represented the Public Authority. The Applicant was present during the hearing.

Decision by the CIC

The Commission on perusal of the submissions available on record, directed the Appellant to hand over a copy of the mercy petition to the CPIO during the hearing, which the Appellant did. The CPIO to provide information on action taken, to the Appellant, by 25.10.09

CIC Decision No CIC/AD/C/2009/000693 dated 25 September 2009

THE APPLICANT DID NOT REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION OF JHUGGI COLONY, BUT WANTED TO KNOW THE ACTION TAKEN ON HIS TWO LETTERS

The Applicant Mr. B.L. Sharma,General Secretary, BSNL, MTNL, RWA, 1768, GPO Compound, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi-110006.filed his RTI application on 12.02.09 with the CPIO, Department of Posts, New Delhi requesting for information on action taken on two of his letters dated 28.10.8 and 12.01.09 regarding demolition of unauthorized Jhuggi No.2, opposite Quarter no. 1768, Kashmere Gate, Delhi.

The CPIO replied on 02.03.09 stating that no material information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act-2005 has been asked and that demolition of jhuggis is not covered under it. Not satisfied with the reply from the CPIO the Applicant filed his First appeal on 24.03.09 requesting for information once again. The Appellate Authority replied on 27.04.09 upholding the decision of the CPIO. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed his Second appeal before the CIC on 18.07.09 reiterating his request.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for 29 September, 2009. Mr. Ganga Prasad, AD(Bldg) & CPIO and Mr. Janardan Singh AD(Bldg) represented the Public Authority. The Applicant Mr. Banwar Lal Sharma and Mr. Ram Prasad were present during the hearing.

Decision by the CIC

The Respondent submitted that the Appellant is requesting for demolition of a Jhuggi colony and that this activity does not fall within the ambit of the RTI Act. The Appellant however, stated that under the RTI Act he is not seeking demolition but wanting to know action taken on his two letters dated 28.10.08 and 12.01.09 regarding demolition of the Jhuggis. The Respondent replied that after the sealing of the place on 17.10.08 , no further action has been taken by the Department except posting a security guard in the premises to ensure that no unauthorized construction is taken up in that area.

The Commission accordingly directs the CPIO to provide details of the security agency appointed to look after the said area and also to inform the Appellant the details of Competent authority whom the Appellant can approach for demolition of the Jhuggis in the Postal Department. The information to be provided by 25.10.09.

CIC Decision No CIC/AD/A/2009/001136 Dated 29 September 2009

PHOTOSTAT COPIES TO BE CERTIFIED BY THE CPIO AND HE SHOULD EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR DELAY IN GIVING THE INFORMATION

MR. SUKHDEV filed an RTI application dated 28.04.08 with the CPIO/Deptt of Posts, Jaipur, requesting for information against 3 points including photocopy of the IPO roster register, reasons for not announcing vacancy for SC, ST Post in IPO 2002-06. The Asstt. Director (Rectt. & Estt) replied on behalf of the CPMG, Rajasthan Circle on 19.3.08 providing information against the 3 points. The Applicant also received a letter from the CPIO dated 8.5.08 requesting the Applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 480/- for photocopying 240 pages of the roster register. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant herein filed a First Appeal before the Appellate Authority on 09.04.09 on the ground that the photocopied pages furnished to him are not certified and that information furnished against the remaining points is not correct. The First Appellate Authority replied on 12.05.09 upholding the decision of the CPIO and maintaining that information provided is correct. Being dissatisfied with the information provided by the Appellate Authority, the Appellant herein filed a Second Appeal before the CIC on 28.07.09.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing on 24th September, 2009. Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, ASP(Court), represented the CPIO of the Public Authority. The Applicant, Mr. Sukhdev, was present in person during the hearing.

Decision by the Commission

The Appellant stated that all information has been received by him and that he is satisfied with it. However he stated that the money for photocopying charges was deposited on 12.05.08 and the information was provided 1 year later. However the CPIO produced the letter dated 07.10.08 by which he had provided the required information along with the photocopy IPO roster register. The Commission after hearing both sides, directs the CPIO to showcause as to why a penalty of Rs. 250/- per day should not be imposed on him for not providing information on time even after having received the photocopying charges. The response to reach the Commission by 2 October, 2009. The CPIO to certify the information already provided to the Appellant. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.

CIC Decision No CIC/AD/A/2009/001134 DATED 24.9.2009

INVESTMENT MADE INTO POSB BY LATE HUSBAND IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE WIFE AFTER TRACING THE DETAILS WITH THE HELP OF AGENT

Ms. Bhavika Sham Chauhan filed RTI application on 04.02.09 with the CPIO, Department of Posts, Dhule requesting for information seeking details about various accounts held in Post office by her husband. The Post Master, Dhule replied to the Applicant stating that according to the Appellant’s letter a large investment has been made in the Nation Saving scheme by her husband . However, he is unable to provide any information without the account number, date of investment and the amount invested or the agents names etc. Not satisfied with reply the Applicant filed her first appeal on 26.02.09 stating that she has provided whatever information is available with her. The First Appellate Authority replied on 23.03.09 upholding the decision of the CPIO. Being aggrieved with the reply of the First Appellate authority the Applicant filed her Second appeal before the CIC on 03.07.09 reiterating her request for the information.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for 30 September, 2009 and Mr. D R Khatade, Sr. Supdt & CPIO represented the Public Authority. The Applicant was heard through audio conference during the hearing.

Decision by the CIC

The Appellant stated that she has no information whatsoever about the details of investments made by her husband in the Post Office. However, during the course of the discussion the Appellant provided a name of one of the Post Office agents who visited her late husband regularly to collect money from him to be deposited in the Post office. The Respondent admitted that he is aware that the agent works for the Post Office. The Commission accordingly directs the CPIO to locate the agent (Mannu Bhai), and with the help of the agent locate the information and provide the same to the Appellant by end of October, 2009.

CIC Decion No CIC/AD/A/2009/001130 dated 30.9.2009

SEEKING OPINIONS SOMETHING THAT MAY HEPPEN IN FUTURE DOES NOT CONFORM WITH THE DEFINITION OF INFORMATION GIVEN UNDER 2(f)

Mr. R.P. Singh filed his RTI application on 08.04.09 with the CPIO, Department of Posts, Lucknow requesting for information against 7 points related CCS (CCA) Rules 1995 in respect of leave encashment, penalty prescribed etc. The CPIO replied on 27.05.09 providing point wise information. Not satisfied with the reply the Applicant filed his First appeal on 01.06.09 requesting for the information against points 6 and 7. The Appellate Authority replied on 15.06.09 upholding the decision of the CPIO. Being aggrieved with this reply the Applicant filed his Second appeal on 04.07.09 reiterating his request for information against points 6 and 7.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for 30 September, 2009 with the following decision.

The Appellant stated that he has not received information against points 6 and 7 of the RTI request. The Respondent submitted that in points 6 and 7 the Appellant is seeking opinions about something that may happen in future and that the information sought does not conform with the definition of information given under Section 2(f). The Commission, after hearing the Respondent, upholds the decision of the Appellate Authority and accordingly rejects the appeal.

Decision No CIC/AD/A/2009/001148 dated 30.9.2009 of CIC

Charge Sheet issued to another official can be disclosed after punishment is over.

Mr. S.C. Verma, Assistant Director (TRG), PTC Saharanpur, Saharanpur has requested for charge sheet issued to one Mr. Bhawani Prasad Sharma , SSPOs Chamba along with punishment order awarded to the officer related to DASUYA (HO) Punjab fraud case. The CPIO replied on 3.2.09 denying the information under Section 8(1)(j of the RTI Act, as personal information. Not satisfied with this reply, the Applicant filed his first appeal against the order of the CPIO stating that punishment awarded to a public servant in a fraud case is a public document and reiterating his request for the information. The Appellate Authority in his Order dated 13.3.09 decided that the memo containing punishment orders of a Government servant is a personal document of the concerned official which is kept in confidential records of the official.

The Commission directed the CIO to disclose the information as in the instant case, the enquiry has been completed and the punishment has been awarded and also since the Public Authority has not made out any case for withholding the information under any of the exemptions under Clause 8(1.). The Commission considered opinion that information sought relates to the activities undertaken by an individual while discharging his functions in his official capacity and that the Public Authority needs to disclose such information as it is accountable to the Public.

Decision No CIC/AD/A/2009/001121 Dated: 30 September 2009